+UNAFEIFOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND THE
TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSTokyo January 23 to 25 2014 Dr. Brian Steels

+RESTORATIVE AND THERAPEUTIC PRACTICESFOLLOWING A RANGE OF CONFLICTS:
AN ISSUE FOR FISCALLY PRUDENTAND SAFER SOCIETIES+Restorative Justice: A solution that
supports responsibility taking andreparation! An approach to justice that focuses on repairing

the harm caused by crime while holding theoffender responsible for his or her actions, byproviding an opportunity for the parties directly
affected by a crime – victim[s], offender andcommunity – to identify and address their needsin the aftermath of a crime, and seek a resolutionthat affords healing, reparation andreintegration, and prevents future harm.
(Cormier 2002)

+Victims are able to share their hurt
and fear as well as seek answers

+

RJ: The benefits are many
! I am an ardent supporter of the principles ofrestorative justice. It offers an opportunity not
only to assist the rehabilitation of offenders but
to give victims a greater stake in the resolutionof offences and in the criminal justice system
as a whole. Victim-led restorative justice canallow us to make inroads into the re-offending
cycle, with the triple benefit of victims
avoiding the trauma of future crimes, the tax
payer not having to foot the bill of more crime,
and a rehabilitated offender making a positive
contribution to society.
! *Lord McNally, British Peer and Parliamentarian, Minister of State for Justice (UK), in his

2012 address to the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group AGM

+Victim lead RJ: Personal stories are
told+

RJ: Kittayarak. 2005
! Kittayarak’s remarks that we ‘”..have to be

mindful that restorative justice is an evolving
concept and there is no definite formula ofsuccess... Each country has to find its own recipe
which properly balances the conventional role ofcriminal justice with this new concept so as to beable to come up with a better way to ensurejustice to all.

+

A typical 3 circle model of RJ;
respectful of culture and tradition
1stCircle
Offender&support
network2nd Circle
Victim andsupport
network

3rd Circle
Community Group
Conference: BothVictim andOffender groups
Face-to-face+

RJ: Regardless of age, crime typeor seriousness+Victims of Crime: China’s
mediated process! Criminal mediation appears to have gained

greater awareness throughout the community,
among victims of crime and those parties taking
responsibility for their actions. China’s judiciaryand Prosecution, in partnership with other parts ofthe criminal justice system, have moved towards
restorative and mediated cases being conductedin the courts under a specific system establishedby the state law, which has highlights thedeveloping path of China's legislation! Yan Xiang 2013:254

+Reshaping lives; rebuilding
community, living justly+

Judge McElrae:RJ a win-win
situation for all! ...restorative justice offers a quite different

view of victims’ interests, one that is notnecessarily opposed to that of offenders –and can produce “win-win” outcomes. They
are actually what is aimed at every time.

+‘Restorative’ processes should bevoluntary and experienced as fairand just by all participants+

RJ and Courts: Judge McElrae! If the Courts could more consistently showthat victims’ interests can be catered for inmeaningful ways (not token ways likevictim impact statements), and that theirneeds are better addressed in this way,
much of the pressure for tougher sentences
would fall away.

+

RJ Week 2013. Responsibility
taking, support and empowerment

+

Facilitated, voluntary and healing+

Restorative Justice Circles andStories: Facilitated, flexible andhealing conversations

+

Victim satisfaction rates post trial
research (2000)! control group going through mainstream court system= 15% satisfaction rate (2)! R&TJ victim group = approximately 90% satisfaction

rate! Victims able to tell offender how the crime impacted on

their lives! Able to be empowered to move from victimhood tosurvivor! Better mental health outcomes for victims

+

RJ heals through everyone’s voice+Seeking fairness and justice, ratherthan revenge

+Gavrielides suggests that we
provide flexible processes to suiteach situation! …if governments are truly committed topromoting restorative justice, then they need towork closer with the communities that create thevarious models through which this abstract
umbrella notion of restorative justice is delivered… whether it is called mediation, circles,
conferencing … Try to mould and standardise
restorative justice and all you will achieve is its
McDonalisation.
! http://www.iars.org.uk/content/mcdonaldisation-rj+Communal conflicts and civil war

+Healing and personaltransformation after conflicts

+

Post community crime: Help andhealing usually follows

+

Post conflict and transitional justice+Rebuilding peace through RJ:
Solomon Islands! Naitoro (2000:12) speaking on the emerging processes

following the Solomon Island conflict suggests that to havethe desirable outcomes of restorative justice the state has totransform and redefine itself to empower all citizens,
regardless of their social grouping or identifying language,
making the claim that:! These restorative practices will depend on a redefinition of

the state from a coercive state to a coordinating state. In thearea of political organization and practice of democracy, it isimportant that a better democracy than now exists isestablished: that is, a democracy that allows for the diversityof social group and identity representation rather than anidealized universal democracy that coerces social groups
into becoming homogenized disposed individuals.

++

RJ: Post conflict, peace building
and transitional planning++

Tyler (2006:307): Fair and justtreatment! ...when people are so treated, they view law andlegal authorities as more legitimate and entitledto be obeyed. As a result, people become selfregulating, taking on the personal responsibility
for following social rules. This approach has
been labelled a process-based model ofregulation+Post-crime and conflict. A time forhealings and sharing+

Braithwaite’s constraining
standards! Braithwaite’s (2002b) framework for standards andpractices begin with “constraining standards” suchas! protection of human rights,! empowerment of participants,! non-domination by any party,! honoring legal limits on sanctions, and! providing respectful listening+

Braithwaite’s maximizing standards! Braithwaite (2002b) further presents the notion of“maximizing standards” such as! restoring human dignity,! the recovery of property and restitution! the healing of damaged human relationships andemotions.

+

Braithwaite’s emergent standards! Braithwaite’s (2002b) third set of standards include! the recognition of remorse and apology,! censure of the act and! forgiveness of the person and! the use of mercy.
! This final set presents as the most valuable to the parties but

should only be provided by participants without any form ofcoercion. Thus for example an apology may be accepted orwithheld and mercy provided without a demand being madefor it.

+RJ: Beware of the regulator!
! Pelikan concludes; the danger I perceive

lurking in the tightly woven web ofregulations is that the very special nature of
the mediation procedure and its potentialfor furthering self-activity and democratic
participation is set aside, smothered, by adiversionary measure that consists in theestablishment of some secondary andsecond-rate criminal procedure (2002:150)